[MUD-Dev] Re: Administrative notes

[Adam Wiggins]

> >The simple way to get rid of combat twinks is to have a real (gamewise)
> >cost attached to it. Make armour and weaponry expensive to get and
> >maintain. Don't give it away for free with each corpse, but make players
> >purchase it with a armourer and weaponssmith. Make money hard to get at,
> >and make not having it a hazardous lifestyle (e.g. characters can really
> >starve to death if they don't eat enough, or the right things). Don't
> >reincarnate characters when they get killed but make that dependent on
> >the actions of other players. If you don't have friends then your
> >characters won't last long. That should make players who are looking to
> >fight think twice and give players who don't want to other things to do.

Agreed with all this - however I think the vital element here is risk of
death.  Cost of armor and weapons is an issue, true.  What keeps everyone
in the world from being master killers is that in order to _become_ a master
killer, you have to kill a whole lot.  If you kill a whole lot, pretty soon,
people start coming after you and wanting you kill _you_.  Live by the sword,
die by the sword.  If you want to run out and constantly get into
life-or-death fights, you'll quickly become a good fighter.  But sooner
or later it's gonna catch up with you, and most likely sooner.  I like
combat as much as the next mudder, but I think it's been waaaay over done.
It seems reasonable to make players pick and choose their fights; maybe
not to the extreme you see on a MUSH, but more in that direction.  (If
you're thinking in terms of MUSHes, then there is a different argument -
I think combat needs to be less contrived.)

> I think this the appropriate way to go.  The only difficulty with this
> approach is maintaining the risk involved with non-combative activities. 
> Risk is crucial for a good game because you can't really have players
> getting reward for typing in ten commands correctly.  This is what is so
> attractive about combat for both implementor and player; it provides
> substantial risk with possible reward.

I've already commented on this in my previous post, so I won't repeat it.

> For example, a healer type should simply heal.   It's a bit contradictory
> to job title if that player must also go out into the world and actually
> kill.  Now, you can't have that same player sitting in the middle of town
> square healer non threatening injured players while leveling up a storm.

Why?  Why, why, why, why?  I don't get it.
If you want to be good at something, you do it a lot.  What is the problem
with becoming a good healer by healing, becoming a good fighter by fighting,
and becoming a good juggler by juggling?  You just don't like for thinks
to make any sort of sense?

> One possible solution would be to force healers to first assume the
> injuries of other players and then attempt to heal themselves; that is
> they would only be able to heal themselves.  This involves some risk, but
> a careful player could be absolved of any substantial risk.

I forget where I first saw this, but I like it a lot.  Druids (I think)
had self-healing skills and skills to transfer the wounds of others to
themselves.  Very cool.

> Another solution could involve metal health.  Lack of mental health could
> be equally debilitating as an equal lack of physical health.  Thus, a mage
> or cleric could cause great harm to themselves using the skills they are
> suppose to use.  Spell use would cause great strain on your mental
> faculties... and perhaps even insanity.

Also cool, but again, I don't think it's necessary to have some sort of
'risk of character deletion' associated with everything you try to do.
How will you keep fishermen from becoming kick-ass by just sitting around
and fishing all day long?  Make sharks appear every so often and swallow up
the dock they are sitting on?   How about that seamstress, will she have
a chance of pricking her finger with a needle and bleeding to death?
*boggle*